Daily Archives: April 9, 2013

Today, the Montana Senate approved House Bill 522 (HB522) by a vote of 43-7, concurring with the State house which previously voted to approve the bill by a 98-0 vote. The bill now goes to the Governor’s desk with a solid veto-proof majority.

If signed into law, HB522 would ban state compliance with, enforcement, enforcement of, or any assistance for NDAA “indefinite detention”. It reads:

The state of Montana may not provide material support or participate with the implementation of sections 1021 and 1022 of the federal National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, Public Law 112-81, within the boundaries of this state.

This would make a HUGE dent in any effort to further restrict due process – and would be a big step forward for Montana. As Judge Andrew Napolitano has said recently, such widespread noncompliance can make a federal law “nearly impossible to enforce” (video here)

Grassroots activists worked tirelessly to support this legislation, and people came from across the political spectrum in favor of the bill. ACLU, Tenth Amendment Center, Oath Keepers and many others worked in favor. Bill sponsor, Nicholas R. Schwaderer, a 24-year old freshman representative for the republicans gained much deserved support from people on both sides of the aisle.

On the 2nd reading of the bill yesterday, the vote tally was 37-12. The grassroots immediately sprang into gear to ensure a stronger margin in the face of a potential veto. Montana Tenth Amendment Center coordinator Tim Ravndal summed it up, “We campaigned pretty hard against the 13 that voted against the bill yesterday on 2nd reading, so I guess we got to almost half.”

Introduced by Republican Assemblymember Tim Donnelly, AB351 is a strong stand against “indefinite detention” as supposedly authorized by the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2012. It declares such federal power to be unconstitutional and also requires the entire state to refuse to enforce or assist its implementation. A broad coalition officially supported the legislation and moved the normally partisan, and strongly democratic committee to support the republican-introduced legislation. AB351 was supported by the ACLU, Tenth Amendment Center, San Francisco 99% coalition, San Francisco Board of Supervisors, the Libertarian Party of California – and many others.

AB351 establishes the proper constitutional role by first citing the 10th Amendment as limiting the power of the federal government as to that which has been delegated to it and nothing more.

The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution authorizes the United States federal government to exercise only those powers specifically delegated to it in the United States Constitution.

It then declares the indefinite detention powers under NDAA to be unconstitutional:

Sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA) codifies indefinite military detention without charge or trial of civilians captured far from any battlefield, violating the United States Constitution and corroding our nation’s commitment to the rule of law

Most importantly, the bill requires the entire state apparatus, including all local governments, to refuse to implement the federal act, or any other federal act (such as AUMF) that might be cited to give the same power to the federal government:

It is the policy of this state to refuse to provide material support for or to participate in any way with the implementation within this state of any federal law that purports to authorize indefinite detention of a person within California.

This would make a HUGE dent in any effort to further restrict due process – and would be a big step forward for California. It would also create shockwaves around the rest of the country. As Judge Andrew Napolitano has said recently, such widespread noncompliance can make a federal law “nearly impossible to enforce” (video here). And in those limited situations where enforcement does occur, Rosa Parks has taught us all the power of “NO!” Passage of AB351 would mark the beginning of the end of NDAA indefinite detention in California.

According to committee chair Tom Ammiano, Donnelly spoke “eloquently” in favor of the bill. Donnelly not only reiterated that the Constitution delegates only limited powers to the federal government, but emphasized that violations of the constitution should be met with a firm NO from the state.

North Carolina is the latest state to take a stand against federal gun control laws, as the Second Amendment Protection Act is now making its way through their State House.

House Bill 518 was introduced on Tuesday and is co-sponsored by an impressive 22 legislators with Reps. Jones, Holloway, R. Brown and Millis as the primary sponsors. It was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary on Wednesday where it awaits further action.

The bill states that “The North Carolina General Assembly finds that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right. The North Carolina General Assembly affirms this right as a constitutionally protected right in this State… This Article applies to firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition that are manufactured in North Carolina.”

The bill continues on to lay out rules to protect firearm and firearm accessories made in North Carolina saying, “A personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in North Carolina and that remains exclusively within the borders of North Carolina is not subject to federal law, federal taxation, or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of the United States Congress to regulate interstate commerce. It is declared by the North Carolina General Assembly that those items have not traveled in interstate commerce.”

To clarify any possible loopholes that the Feds may try to exploit within the law, the bill very specifically states, “The authority of the United States Congress to regulate interstate commerce in basic materials does not include authority to regulate firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition made within North Carolina borders from those materials. Firearms accessories that are imported into North Carolina from another state and that are subject to federal regulation as being in interstate commerce do not subject a firearm to federal regulation under interstate commerce because the firearm accessory is attached to or used in conjunction with a firearm in North Carolina.”

Share this:

Senator Brian Kelsey is at it again, trying to deceive Tennesseans on the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms. After Kelsey’s circus-worthy constitutional gymnastics in favor of the federal government’s supposed power to take Tennesseans’ firearms away as he worked frantically to kill SB250, he now says he wants to protect Tennesseans’ right to keep and bear arms with his non-binding resolution SR0017.

Huh?

Something about this doesn’t pass the smell test.

Kelsey’s SB250 Shenanigans

After watching the video of Sen. Brian Kelsey’s antics in two meetings of the Senate Judiciary Committee as he worked to kill SB250 – a bill that would have provided broad protections to Tennesseans against any federal scheme to register, confiscate, or tax firearms, ammunition or accessories – it’s hard to believe that this man cares one whit about the 2nd Amendment or the natural right to defend oneself.

In the second committee meeting, multiple people in attendance told the Tenth Amendment Center that Kelsey even turned off fellow Senator Stacey Campfield’s microphone to try to avoid counting his yea vote in support of SB250. Campfield’s vote led to a tie vote with 4 yeas and 4 nos, keeping the bill alive in the Senate Judiciary Committee. You can hear Sen. Campfield yelling so his vote would be heard even without the microphone in the video (at the end of the second video).

We picked apart Brian Kelsey’s constitutional trickery both in an article and in testimony given by the Tenth Amendment Center’s own National Communications Director Mike Maharrey. Strangely enough, Sen. Kelsey even purports to be a constitutional law professor on his legislative bio – just like Pres. Barack Obama.

A new study by a Libertarian think tank called the Mercatus Center at George Mason University ranks the 50 states in order of personal freedoms. So, how does your state stack up? Judge Andrew Napolitano reveals that the most free states are North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and New Hampshire. The least free are New York, New Jersey, California, Hawaii, and Rhode Island.

The study determined the rankings based on “the laws that the states impose that regulate personal, private behavior.”

According to Napolitano the results of the study are mixed. “The bad news is that there are states like New York, New York City, where the government thinks it can regulate private behavior. The good news is, as Ronald Reagan used to say, you can still vote with your feet. If you think the taxes are too high in New Jersey, you can move to Pennsylvania.”